The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Bitritrium

Bitritrium (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing that we can currently say about this predicted chemical element, and there are no efforts to synthesize it. WP has articles for predicted elements up to 120 where serious research is being conducted, but elements 121 and beyond redirect to Extended periodic table. shoy ( reactions) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 05:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As the nominator points out, this article is basically unverifiable speculation. We can make exceptions for "certain scientific extrapolations", like elements 119 and 120, but I can't find any scientific sources describing element 233, so delete. If we follow past precedent, we could redirect to either extended periodic table or systematic element name, but I don't see the point of creating these types of redirects ad nauseam. Altamel ( talk) 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above, and I'll add that I think a redirect is completely unnecessary as "Bitritrium" is a highly unlikely search term, I don't think many people are looking for information on hypothetical elements numbered that high. Not to mention, if we ever did get to a point where we were able to produce this element, there is no guarantee it would keep the name Bitritrium. - War wizard90 ( talk) 04:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

It's a systematic name. All newly synthesized elements get a temporary name, and then the IUPAC takes several years to decide the naming rights. Altamel ( talk) 16:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.